Talk:Makemake (dwarf planet)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Makemake (dwarf planet) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Featured topic star Makemake (dwarf planet) is part of the Dwarf planets series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 4, 2009.
WikiProject Solar System (Rated FA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Solar System, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Solar System on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
For more information, see the Solar System importance assessment guideline.
WikiProject Astronomy / Astronomical objects  (Rated FA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon Makemake (dwarf planet) is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Astronomical objects, which collaborates on articles related to astronomical objects.
 

Does it have a moon[edit]

For satellites we can't say if it have a satellite because we don't know yet. Make make was a original known nodies in the solar system. We don't even know ehat atmosphere we have, we don't even know if it has rings. Artist beleives the planet is purple, for a fix diameter and axial tilt, we don't know yet.--Freewayguy What's up? 23:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Artist impressions are taken on face value and obviously based as much on the truth as possible but after the truth runs out the artist gets relatively free range to interpret the rest of it. Don't worry about the color. Aside from that, it appears to have a moon or two. Imasleepviking ( talk ) 13:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

template[edit]

What's the point of the Makemake template? It only appears here, and so is nothing more than a 'See also' section, but is less useful because it's obscured by the clutter of four other templates. Should we delete? kwami (talk) 01:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, if there's no suitable template, then it needs to be here Imasleepviking ( talk ) 13:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I obviously didn't understand the question and retract my previous statement, I don't agree with it existing either. Imasleepviking ( talk ) 17:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I absolutely agree, and was actually considering removing it until I checked the other dwarf planets. All of them have their own template, so theoretically this action should apply to those as well. However, I think Pluto's and even Ceres' are appropriate, despite the clutter, which at the very least lends itself to the keeping of the Makemake template. -- Amory (talk) 23:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

absolute magnitude[edit]

In Orbit and classification, the last para. said

To be considered a plutoid, an object must be exceptionally bright and have an absolute magnitude of +1 or less,[23]

That wording describes two requirements, one of "brightness" and one of absolute magnitude. That might have been correct, if "brightness" were referring to apparent magnitude, but in fact the source referenced states only one requirement of magnitude:

for naming purposes, any Solar System body having (a) a semimajor axis greater than that of Neptune, and (b) an absolute magnitude brighter than H = +1 (see Notes) will, for the purpose of naming, be considered to be a plutoid

The article states requirement (a) separately and in lay terms. I've changed the wording of (b). -- Thnidu (talk) 15:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

resonance[edit]

Kheider added a link claiming Makemake is in a 11:6 resonance with Neptune, but in the text we say it's in a free orbit. The site doesn't look particularly reliable to me, so I didn't want to fix the text to match. But we should either describe the resonance in the text, or remove the link. kwami (talk) 18:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. But I've asked Kheider for a better set of sources, so give him time to locate them. Serendipodous 18:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
I hardly see 11:6 resonance is important anyway Imasleepviking ( talk ) 13:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Why wouldn't an 11:6 resonance be important? If it is currently in an 11:6 resonance, is it possible it could one day move into a 9:5 resonance? Or 7:4 resonance?202.139.104.226 (talk) 13:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
The current published orbital periods of Neptune, Pluto and Makemake are 165, 248, and 310 years respectively. These suggest a "resonance" of 8 : 12 : 15, making the Makemake - Neptune "resonance" closer to 15 : 8 than to 11 : 6. Glenn L (talk) 14:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I've joined the Orbit Simulator [1] group and we're investigating other potential resonances. A longterm plot [2] appears to argue against both 11:6 and 15:8 since it's centered at about 1.863. But this could support resonances such as 13:7 (1.857), 28:15 (1.867), and even 41:22 (1.864). Results soon - I hope. Glenn L (talk) 18:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Glen. Thanks for joining the group. I will be curious what results you can come up with, even if it is just the nearest resonance. Please let us know what you find. MPEC 2009-E53 still calls it a Cubewano., but the MPEC does not normally list high order resonances since they are harder to prove. -- Kheider (talk) 19:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, while 11:6 looks nice picturewise, it won't be practical unless we can get Makemake down to a 303-year orbit. Recent JPL data [3] suggests a period of 305.7 years rather than 309.9. In any case, Frankuitaalst reports:
"I tried the 13:7 and 41:22 resonance in rotating frame with Neptune , but alaas Makemake doesn't fit in this resonance . Also as the resonance number rise ( from 7---> 22) it's becoming difficult to recognize a good pattern because the screen gets so full . Moreover I think that if we would find a good match with a number > 41:22 then the found pattern could be easly considered as being coincidental . I'm afraid JPL can't help the situation as I took the initial conditions from the JPL ephemeris ." - Still a Cubewano. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glenn L (talkcontribs) 04:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Update: the main article has been edited (not by me) to read: "Makemake is near (though not in) the 11:6 resonance with Neptune." Glenn L (talk) 16:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Notes[edit]

I tagged out the notes about derivations from formulas, I don't think they need noting and that the page for the object itself is fine Imasleepviking ( talk ) 13:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

need to verify discovery date[edit]

...cuz IAU announcements are worthless. The date after the word "discovered" generally isn't the discovery date. I'm not sure if they use the date of the discovery image, or just whatever the discoverer happens to claim, but they got both Eris and Haumea wrong. Our Makemake date looks approximately right, but I'd be happier if we had something from Brown. kwami (talk) 08:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation[edit]

The pronunciation is backed up by a link to http://www.mikebrownsplanets.com/2008/07/whats-in-name-part-2.html

However, the same author corrects this source as being wrong here http://www.mikebrownsplanets.com/2008/07/make-make.html

Also see http://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&lr=&id=LOZuirJWXvUC&oi=fnd&pg=PA63&dq=makemake&ots=xyXfFytGAc&sig=9Bgeo5m2_e3gzZb4ZnD0VpEdyWo#PPA63,M1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.102.255.109 (talk) 00:09, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

This is a question of how close we stick to the original pronunciation, and we already include both possibilities (as we do with all astro articles I've worked on). It's an issue with all names: Should the moon Io be "eye-oh" or "ee-oh"? (Astronomers use both.) Should Paris be "pair-iss" or "pə-ree"? Etc. Makemake is the same. The fully anglicized pronunciation is "mah-kee-mah-kee" (at least for Yanks; perhaps for Brits "mak-ee-mak-ee"), because final unstressed [e] in foreign names regularly becomes [i] in English: cf. saké, karaoke, karate, ukulele, etc. People occasionally try to pronounce them with final "ay", but usually they give up. Even the days of the week like Tuesday get reduced to final "dee" in normal conversation. Mike says he may have been influenced by the Hawaiian word wiki-wiki, but I suspect he simply fell back on English habit. The closest parallel to Makemake I can find in the OED is the Maori tree name ake-ake, which per the OED is pronounced "ak-ee-ak-ee" (only stressed on the initial syllable). kwami (talk) 00:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

OK but you don't pronounce it "m-ache m-ache" which one might think in english given the spelling? That should be made clear. Distinctions on vowels is less important. Give two or three pronunciations if you want. OsamaBinLogin (talk) 19:17, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Terrible name[edit]

Makemake? Is that the best they could do? :/ 99.140.176.63 (talk) 07:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

"Blame the easter islanders. Raul654 (talk) 17:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
You do not appreciate the problems involved in coming up with tens of thousands of unique names. This was already a problem in the 1950s, when there were only one or two thousand named objects in the Solar System. People were getting desperate even then. (Around 500 BCE Lao Tsu said, "There are already enough names. One must know when to stop.") Wwheaton (talk) 21:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
If Brian May can get an asteroid named after him ;) Raul654 (talk) 13:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I personally find it rather... cute that astronomers would choose to honour a dumpy little isle like Easter. I guess even one of the most insignificant land masses on Earth can get recognized in space. Brutannica (talk) 05:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Just you wait, they'll eventually be planets or asteroids or meteors called Wikipedia or something alone those lines. Evilgidgit (talk) 14:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations on your successful prediction! The main-belt asteroid 274301 Wikipedia was named early last year. Double sharp (talk) 14:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

vandalism[edit]

ive noticed a lot of vandalism to this page over the past few days, shouldnt something be done about it? Mr Deathbat (talk) 09:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Brightness, size and rotation[edit]

The article currently claims:

>In the latter case a strong asymmetry is expected in the surface composition: the currently invisible summer hemisphere would have far fewer volatiles on it than the winter hemisphere.

However, shouldn't Makemake always show us its summer side, given that Earth and Sun are almost in the same direction when viewing from Makemake?--Roentgenium111 (talk) 21:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation[edit]

I have yet to see a pronunciation aide for this satellite. Is it "make-make" like the word "make". Or more like "mah-key-mah-key", or a combo? 98.247.162.70 (talk) 22:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Given the name is from Polynesian, I'd wager "mah kay mah kay" (per Hawaiian), but I haven't got a source for it. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 00:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
The pronunciation guide is in the userbox on the right of the page at the top, under the photo. Iridia (talk) 02:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
That guide is difficult to notice -- I missed it myself until seeing Irinda's comment on the Talk page. Suggest that this pronunciation guide is repeated within the "Name" section of the article. Mrstonky (talk) 01:54, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

dubious tag[edit]

The issue here is the same as for Haumea. Please see Talk:Haumea (dwarf planet)#dubious tag for discussion. — kwami (talk) 11:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


(EDIT: In regards to yet another dwarf planet POV tag) I fail to see what problem the average reader will have with the following two statements already included in the article:

  • Makemake was formally classified as a plutoid in July 2008.
  • This practically guarantees that it is large enough to achieve hydrostatic equilibrium and become an oblate spheroid.

Is there a section in the article that claims this status is non-revocable? -- Kheider (talk) 03:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

You already know, since you've been involved in the discussion. Or are there two Kheiders here?
The problem is the lead, where we say it is, when we have a RS saying it likely is. — kwami (talk) 04:26, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Again, you are speculating as to what Sheppard meant in one sentence that can be interpreted more than one way. We already know that there are no absolutes and Sheppard goes into no details (ie, numbers, probabilities, measurements, etc) in regards to Eris, Haumea, or Makemake. As you have written elsewhere, "You can play WP:point games like that with any source or claim." The scientific consensus is that Makemake and Haumea are dwarf planets. At no point does Sheppard denounce their status and give a detailed explanation as to why they should NOT be considered dps. You are using one sentence to WP:point and push a POV onto the three featured articles: Dwarf planet, Makemake and Haumea. -- Kheider (talk) 12:54, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I think this a good summary of what is actually happening here. Ruslik_Zero 12:59, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The statement is quite clear: he distinguishes between "bona fide" and "likely" DPs. You can't honestly take that to mean anything other than what it says. Again, "denouncing their status" is not the point, as you are obviously able to understand, since no-one is attempting to "denounce their status". The point is that RSs disagree on which bodies are DPs. Now, most of them say that Haumea and Makemake are, and we should weight the article accordingly, but Sheppard et al. is a significant exception. A significant RS exception to an opinion needs to be included by WP:NPOV. — kwami (talk) 14:26, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

If you truly believe that Sheppard means to publicly downplay the probability that Makemake and Haumea are dps, then YOU also need to downplay the status of Eris based on Sheppard2011. You should not speculate so much about one sentence in one source. We write our articles for the reader's benefits, not our own. There is no reason to mention in the WP:LEAD summary that the status of a dp is revocable if it later turns out to be a lumpy contact binary, cloaked Death Star, overgrown potato, etc. -- Kheider (talk) 15:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I'd be happy to downplay it if that's what the source said, but Sheppard2011 says that Eris is a "bona fide" DP. He distinguishes between Pluto, Eris, and Ceres on the one hand, and the other 6 on the other. I agree that the revocable bit does not belong in the lead: that's understood from the IAU acceptance based on magnitude. But then, that's not what I'm advocating: I'm not trying to follow the revocable clause from the IAU, I'm trying to follow a very clear statement from several excellent astronomers that separates Haumea and Makemake from Eris and Pluto. And I don't understand how you can blithely dismiss it, or claim you don't understand it.
Your arguments do not become you: IF I'm honest / disagree with you, THEN I must accept some easily debunkable straw man that you set up. Is that what you're reduced to? If you have no intelligent defense for your POV, why do you maintain it? — kwami (talk) 15:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Your source contradicts itself. (Sheppard 2011, page 2 paragraph 2, very clearly mentions "likely dwarf planets Eris". To claim that Eris was a dwarf planet candidate only when it was discovered is SYN. Eris was a planet candidate because the definition of a dwarf-planet did not exist in 2005. It is the 2006 IAU resolution that made Pluto, Ceres and Eris dps.
I have grown tired of running in the same circles with you on several pages: Talk:Dwarf planet, Talk:Haumea_(dwarf_planet), Talk:Makemake (dwarf planet), Talk:Eris_(dwarf_planet), and User_talk:Kheider. You have failed to prove your point that Makemake and Haumea should be treated on the same footing as Sedna, 2007 OR10, Orcus, and Quaoar. You keep starting a debate on every dwarf planet page and dispute page that you can in hopes more editors will support your Sheppard2011-POV pushing. Even JorisvS does not support your tactics or non-compromising attitude. I do not mind re-wording Sedna, 2007 OR10, Orcus and Quaoar to reflect that some astromoners think they might be dps, but then again that is what Wikipedia use to call "strong dwarf-planet candidates". -- Kheider (talk) 16:24, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── And I have grown tired of you making the same disingenuous arguments over and over. Shall I point out how almost everything you just said is false or misleading?

You complain about having this discussion on too many pages. So why did you split one discussion into three? I started this section as a redirect from from the dispute tag to the discussion being held at Haumea. But after arguing there, you came here to start over again. Then you restarted the discussion—again—at Eris. That is, you started 2 of the 4 talk sections—2 out of 3 that focus on Haumea and Makemake—and you have the gall to complain that the discussion is on too many pages?

You say I have failed to prove "my point" that Makemake and Haumea should be treated on the same footing as the others. But I never said that, and I presume you know I never said that. What I said, over and over, is that we have three categories of acceptance. Three categories, not two: universally accepted DPs, other DPs accepted by the IAU, and other DPs accepted by Brown &c. Haumea and Makemake fall in the 2nd category. I never claimed they should be lumped in with the 3rd, as you claim, just that they should not be lumped in with the 1st.

The point is not that "some astromoners think they might be DPs". We've always said that, so you are not actually accepting anything by allowing that. The point is that some astronomers accept that they are DPs, that which objects are DPs depends on who you ask. What some here have been pushing is that only the IAU be allowed as a source as to which objects are DPs. That violates NPOV.

Your mischaracterization of Sheppard et al. was debunked in the Eris discussion you started, but now that you've split it here (just so you could complain about it), I suppose we need to repeat it?

1. Introduction. [...] In these [Palomar surveys from 2003 to 2010] tens of bright TNOs including likely dwarf planets Eris, Makemake, Haumea, Orcus, Quaoar, Sedna and 2007 OR10 were discovered.
4.2.1. Dwarf Planets. [...] Though the dwarf planet definition is imprecise, it is clear that Ceres in the main asteroid belt as well as Pluto and Eris in the outer solar system are bonafide dwarf planets. Makemake and Haumea are also likely dwarf planets as are the next largest bodies in the outer solar system such as Sedna, 2007 OR10, Orcus and Quaoar.

Now, it the first part is in the historical introduction, speaking of the discovery of large TNOs; the second is in the definition of dwarf planet, speaking of what we know about them. Now, I agree that the wording of the first line isn't very good: as you say, the classification of DP did not exist when many of those surveys were made, and you can debate what we should make of the wording. But the second—what we know—is unambiguous: Eris is clearly in, Makemake and Haumea most likely in. You've argued that they separate Makemake and Haumea from the others, and they do say they're larger, but that just follows the division between categories 2 and 3 that we've already established with our refs to the IAU. — kwami (talk) 17:24, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

So what you are saying is there is no reason to seriously question Makemake and Haumea as dwarf planets (I will also include Eris), until there is a specific statement from a reliable source that denounces the IAU reason for listing them as dps. Good. Since only "some astronomers" accept Sedna, 2007 OR10, Orcus, and Quaoar as dps, we need to carefully word them according to the references. There are dwarf planets accepted by an overwhelming scientific consensus (category 1) and we have dwarf planet candidates that some astronomers consider to be dps (category 2). There is no reason to create a different category for every generic dp list created, especially a one sentence list that contradicts a previous statement in the same reference. -- Kheider (talk) 18:27, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
It's only a contradiction if you insist on reading it that way. You could, of course, accept that they just might know what they're talking about.
Of course there is no serious reason to question Makemake or Haumea! There is also no serious reason to question Quaoar, Sedna, Orcus, or OR10. They're all likely to be DPs. The question is how likely. More people accept M and H than accept Q, S, O, and OR10. But not as many as accept C, E, and Pl. As long as you insist on only two cats, with M & H lumped in with one or the other, you will contradict a RS and therefore NPOV. The obvious solution is to say who accepts them: everyone (C, E, Pl), most (incl. the IAU: H, M), or some (Q, O, S, OR). We can debate the wording, but reflects our sources. And it's not difficult to do, if you were willing to work on compromise to reflect those sources rather than setting up the IAU as the sole authority. And unify the table in the DP article, coded for acceptance, so we no longer misrepresent our sources there. — kwami (talk) 18:54, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
If there is no serious reason to question Makemake or Haumea, why you are questioning them? Does it mean that you are not serious? Or does you imply that authors of this paper are serious? The latter may actually be true, because that sentence (as the one before it) does not appear to be carefully worded. More people accept M and H than accept Q, S, O, and OR10. But not as many as accept C, E, and Pl. Do you have any source that says this? This statement is not obvious and requires a proof. you will contradict a RS and therefore NPOV. The statement is false. There are many cases where even perfectly reliable sources make weird statements. And specifically for such cases we have WP:UNDUE, which clear says that a point view held by a small minority (we have just one ambiguous sentence in a singular paper) may be ignored or at least discussed in a separate article. My overall conclusion from the above rather useless discussion is that you are simply using this issue as a vehicle to advance your another well known position about the status of four well known TNOs, in other words this a continuation of POV pushing by other means. Ruslik_Zero 17:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
First of all, calling the statement ambiguous does not make it ambiguous. It is quite clear. How much weight we should give it is of course a different matter.
No serious reason to doubt is not the same as certainty. In science, the question is how certain we can be. Sheppard et al. accept the original 3 as "bonafide", and the next 6 as "likely". I don't understand why you find that difficult to understand. You do, however, raise a legitimate point about how much WP:WEIGHT we should give this particular source. That's why I introduced the RfC by saying this dispute was about NPOV and WEIGHT, the latter referring specifically to this question. — kwami (talk) 21:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Size[edit]

This talks about a stellar occultation by Makemake producing an equatorial diameter of 1610+22
−180
km, but all have been able to dig up so far is [4], which does not give an estimate. Does anyone know anything about the full version, maybe whether it still awaits publication? --JorisvS (talk) 17:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

This result has not been officially published, so should not be used. It can still change. Ruslik_Zero 18:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Not just that it can still change, but I wouldn't trust a reporter to get it right, though it looks credible enough. (Wow, I agree with Ruslik!) Perhaps we can write to Ortiz? — kwami (talk) 22:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that's why I didn't just add it. I prefer to have the occultation result in the article, Ortiz could help us out here. --JorisvS (talk) 23:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Ortiz says there should be no problem citing the reported results, "siempre que digas que son preliminares". He hopes to finish his analysis in less than a month, and he'll publish at that time. — kwami (talk) 05:04, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Eclips results out: Is this still a dwarf planet?[edit]

BBC today comes with http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20426114

Nice results of Makemake passing in front of distant star: No atmosphere, density 1700 kg/m3, and diameter is 1430 km in one direction, and 1500 in another. Unless it spins fast (I think unlikely for that distant objects, and would have been detected in Doppler blurr of normally sharp lines?) it is not an ellipsoid, but a potato like object. So the thing's gravity does not make it into a ball, flattened into an ellipsoid by spin. Does it now still fit the definition of dwarf planetsPieter Felix Smit (talk) 08:04, 22 November 2012 (UTC)?

Earth is not a perfect sphere either. Makemake spins in 7.7 hours while Haumea spins in 3.9 hours. -- Kheider (talk) 08:10, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
My reading of that article is that the equatorial and polar diameters are different. 70 km is significant flattening for a body that size, but doesn't seem like a disqualifying amount. My quick calculations show that Saturn's moon Mimas, which is considered to be in equilibrium, is more significantly off-spherical than Makemake with these results. --Patteroast (talk) 16:07, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
The exact shape does not matter, so long as the object has achieved hyrdostatic equilibruim. Haumea has an even greater disparity between its polar and equatorial diameters and is classified as a dwarf planet. The presence of an atmosphere has nothing to do if an object is considered a dwarf planet or not.XavierGreen (talk) 16:29, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Also note that Makemake is less squashed than Saturn (715/751 > 54400/60300). Density also affects how far off-spherical you have to go to be in H-E. Tbayboy (talk) 19:53, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
If you read the article and its supplement you will see that 1,500 km value is not a reliable estimate of the semi-major axis. They basically have all chords near the equator, so they can only reliably estimate the semi-minor axis. In fact, it is perfectly possible to fit a circle to all chords with almost the same χ2. More over 1,500 km value is not the result of a fitting procedure, but is based on an assumed (from physical considerations) value for flattening—1.05 ± 0.03. So, what is the real flattening of Makemake is still an open question. Ruslik_Zero 08:51, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Kuiper belt diagram needs to be reverted[edit]

Hello. I'm posting this here since the image's talk page says don't use it for requesting corrections but to post such requests on the talk page of the article in which it appears.

The image under question has some blackened areas where some orbits mask other orbits partially. As can be seen from the image's page the previous version by Nickshanks does not have this problem. But the note on the current version says it has improved stroke width. It would be good if someone fixes the blackening.

Thanks. Jamadagni (talk) 13:41, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Weird. If you click on it, the problem suddenly goes away. --JorisvS (talk) 14:29, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
I rv'd the img, since the whole point was to improve the display at small scales. Problems like this are really common w SVG. — kwami (talk) 20:15, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Somehow it still gives black parts for me at the image's page, also after purging, though not here in the article!? --JorisvS (talk) 10:29, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Largest classical[edit]

Is there a possibility that Makemake is not the largest classical KBO? --JorisvS (talk) 07:43, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

We might have missed s.t. that has the Milky Way as a backdrop, but chances are we've found most of the big stuff in the main belt. (Further out, it might be a couple decades before things clear the Milky Way.) I'd feel comfortable saying it is the biggest, and would be pleasantly surprised if it turns out we're wrong.
Do Brown et al. still consider it 'near scattered'? That's probably the only reason for the 'perhaps'. — kwami (talk) 08:05, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
If Makemake is a 'near scattered' objects, then so are all hot classicals. Seems pointless. I don't know about Brown. --JorisvS (talk) 10:09, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
I assume the classification has settled down since then, but don't know. — kwami (talk) 11:25, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
There might not be a difference between near-scattered and hot-classical because of the Kozai mechanism? The note in the lead says it's not just Brown, but also Jewitt and Buie -- not a triad to dismiss. Tbayboy (talk) 17:06, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
It's always possible that something was missed, but I think the "known" is implicit. Along with the Milky Way, there's also the possibility of higher-inclination objects near their off-ecliptic peaks, beyond the "altitude" of the surveys. Tbayboy (talk) 16:51, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Rotation period[edit]

Does anyone know why the JPL browser states a rotation period of 22.48 h?[5] --JorisvS (talk) 13:22, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Absolute magnitude[edit]

We have a measured diameter of (1434 × 1422) ± 14 km and a measured albedo of 0.81+0.01
−0.02
, yet also an inconsistent[6] absolute magnitude of −0.44±0.42, which also has a rather big uncertainty that is currently unsourced (as well as the second last digit of H). What can we do about this? Is there another source floating around that has a better H value that maybe is also consistent? Or is there anything else that we can do about it? --JorisvS (talk) 12:12, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

There is no measured albedo (for these distantly observed objects), it is calculated from H and diameter. Each albedo source is calculated from the H and diameter that the writers had available to them at the time, so it's not valid to use one source's albedo with another's H or another's diameter estimate. You can see this in the size estimates that use assumed albedo. Tbayboy (talk) 13:35, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Not directly, but by precise measurement of the spectrum, an estimate can be made. Regardless, the inconsistency remains. --JorisvS (talk) 16:26, 9 December 2014 (UTC)